Scientists (or Historians) specialists in their fields might be quacks in Religion?

[George-ananda]

Gotta ask, what scientists' opinions re. god etc, are people focusing on too much?

Like Hawkins, Einstein and other scientists that deal with the grand stuff as just an example.

And, are these opinions based on science, or are they simply the opinions of scientists, like the opinions of bankers or wheat farmers?

Based on their opinions like wheat farmers and religious clergy. Science doesn't help with non-falsifiable claims.

 

[Parsimony]

Scientists (or Historians ) specialists in their fields might be quacks in Religion, therefore, their opinion about religious matters have no value.
Regards

Problem areas underlined.

 

[psychoslice]

Surgeons don't know anything about science.

Or changing a car tyre lol.

 

[Revoltingest]

Or changing a car tyre lol.

Orthopedic surgeons do.
They're the mechanics of the slice & dice world.

 

[Skwim]

Like Hawkins, Einstein and other scientists that deal with the grand stuff as just an example.

I don't think Einstein has said much religion-related stuff to focus on. However, Richard Dawkins (I assume this is whom you meant) has had a lot to say, much of it quite insightful, or at least of interest to those who've never given his subject matter much thought, which is why it's drawn interest. That this amounts to "too much focus" would depend on one's point of view. Personally, I found his "calling a spade a spade" refreshing, and worthy of keeping in mind. Far, far too often religious comments made by those professionally involved in religion is just regurgitated religious doctrine or religious attitudes; stuff everyone, even the nonreligious, has heard before. As for Dawkins in particular, I think the following are fairly thought provoking.

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

“We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?”
― Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder

“A child is not a Christian child, not a Muslim child, but a child of Christian parents or a child of Muslim parents. This latter nomenclature, by the way, would be an excellent piece of consciousness-raising for the children themselves. A child who is told she is a 'child of Muslim parents' will immediately realize that religion is something for her to choose -or reject- when she becomes old enough to do so.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

“Do not indoctrinate your children. Teach them how to think for themselves, how to evaluate evidence, and how to disagree with you.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

“...when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.”
― Richard Dawkins

All the above are taken from HERE​

 

[George-ananda]

However, Richard Dawkins (I assume this is whom you meant)

I meant Stephen Hawkin (typo that I said Hawkins). But anyway, quotes and opinions from non-scientists are aplenty too. But back to the OP question, science people can have quacky views on religion undeniably.

 

[Skwim]

I meant Stephen Hawkin (typo that I said Hawkins). But anyway, quotes and opinions from non-scientists are aplenty too. But back to the OP question, science people can have quacky views on religion undeniably.

Stephen Hawking has made several comments on his atheism, but nothing I recall anyone would focus on. They make make note of it, which is really all they're worth as I remember.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Scientists (or Historians ) specialists in their fields might be quacks in Religion, therefore, their opinion about religious matters have no value.
Regards

I believe everything Saint Dawkins says because he understands religion better than most religious people, so there.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But back to the OP question, science people can have quacky views on religion undeniably.

A lot of religious people have quacky views on religion undeniably.

 

[Mindmaster]

Just to say, I concur with @Skwim on the fact that given the choice of any god you could follow why pick the spoiled brat?

As far as the hard-line skeptics go -- some people need to remember the concept of evidence is subjective and even material facts are often subject to our understanding of others. For most people of faith the word of someones family and friends + a few holy books is sound enough evidence. It would serve you better to be a bit more tolerant and understanding in the case where someone hasn't fully signed up for the church of Dawkins. Find the middle ground and educate.

As far as these atheist talking-head types none of them are involved in any research along those lines (Dawkins included) which in my view would make them full of **** and completely incapable of rendering even a scientific opinion. They do not research the myths, methods, or practices of any group or try them out. They do not collect data from people that do -- they just assume things. It is a precarious position we are in when propaganda is more important than exploration. There is no evidence our ancestors were any less intelligent than we are now, so put that into your pipe and ask yourself why no one does that work other than from an academic or data gathering standpoint? They do realize that most of the stories in ancient religions are metaphorical right? I mean people don't have flying horses... I doubt the ancients did either... Think of it as old school "Michael Bay Treatment" and then stop using these things as an excuse to not properly investigate the subject. The religions complain that science doesn't properly investigate the truth of these matters, and I tend to agree -- you would have to find some sort of rogue scientist who would be willing to suffer financial hardship for even seriously entertaining the idea. In essence, the modern day scientific schools bully people along a line of thought.... It had become a dogma of sorts, and like all cases where someone assumes they know it all... They are merely waiting the cliff at the end of the road.

I value scientific thinking and reasoning greatly, but I despise these sorts of intolerable people who I can do nothing but detest as a result of their ridiculous amount of hubris. My opinion is -- if you call yourself a scientist and don't actually explore the practical sides of a subject such as this you need to shut the hell up... I don't ask my dentist about my foot pain...

All that being said, I feel some religions are "fake" and don't actually involve any sort of practice... I think you have to be a monk or a magician to have a path -- joining a cheer team doesn't mean you are doing anything in actuality -- attending a service, reading a book, etc... Sorry, not enough... they mimic spiritual practices, but actually involve none of the processes just the appearance of them. (Most Christian practices are absorbed from pagans, but they don't even know why they do them... Go ahead and ask.. lol)

 

[Augustus]

Scientists (or Historians ) specialists in their fields might be quacks in Religion, therefore, their opinion about religious matters have no value.
Regards

Depends what you mean by 'religious matters'?

When you are talking about theology, spirituality, religious ethics, etc. then they frequently don't have a clue and their opinions are largely uninformed.

If you are talking about certain religious claims being scientifically/historically true or not then they might well be specialists on the issue. If I want to know how old the Earth is, a scientist knows more than a priest. When looking at historical events, a historian has every right to point out if religious dogma refers to events that didn't happen.

When religion overlaps with other areas of knowledge, then of course specialists in these areas of knowledge can offer valuable insights.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

No matter how much time one spends memorizing, studying, and analyzing scripture, it doesn't change the fact that it's still just fictional stories invented by people.

 

[paarsurrey]

I don't think Einstein has said much religion-related stuff to focus on. However, Richard Dawkins (I assume this is whom you meant) has had a lot to say, much of it quite insightful, or at least of interest to those who've never given his subject matter much thought, which is why it's drawn interest. That this amounts to "too much focus" would depend on one's point of view. Personally, I found his "calling a spade a spade" refreshing, and worthy of keeping in mind. Far, far too often religious comments made by those professionally involved in religion is just regurgitated religious doctrine or religious attitudes; stuff everyone, even the nonreligious, has heard before. As for Dawkins in particular, I think the following are fairly thought provoking.

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

“We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?”
― Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder

“A child is not a Christian child, not a Muslim child, but a child of Christian parents or a child of Muslim parents. This latter nomenclature, by the way, would be an excellent piece of consciousness-raising for the children themselves. A child who is told she is a 'child of Muslim parents' will immediately realize that religion is something for her to choose -or reject- when she becomes old enough to do so.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

“Do not indoctrinate your children. Teach them how to think for themselves, how to evaluate evidence, and how to disagree with you.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

“...when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.”
― Richard Dawkins

All the above are taken from HERE​

Does any of this stuff has got anything to do with Biology? Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Just to say, I concur with @Skwim on the fact that given the choice of any god you could follow why pick the spoiled brat?
As far as the hard-line skeptics go -- some people need to remember the concept of evidence is subjective and even material facts are often subject to our understanding of others. For most people of faith the word of someones family and friends + a few holy books is sound enough evidence. It would serve you better to be a bit more tolerant and understanding in the case where someone hasn't fully signed up for the church of Dawkins. Find the middle ground and educate.
As far as these atheist talking-head types none of them are involved in any research along those lines (Dawkins included) which in my view would make them full of **** and completely incapable of rendering even a scientific opinion. They do not research the myths, methods, or practices of any group or try them out. They do not collect data from people that do -- they just assume things. It is a precarious position we are in when propaganda is more important than exploration. There is no evidence our ancestors were any less intelligent than we are now, so put that into your pipe and ask yourself why no one does that work other than from an academic or data gathering standpoint? They do realize that most of the stories in ancient religions are metaphorical right? I mean people don't have flying horses... I doubt the ancients did either... Think of it as old school "Michael Bay Treatment" and then stop using these things as an excuse to not properly investigate the subject. The religions complain that science doesn't properly investigate the truth of these matters, and I tend to agree -- you would have to find some sort of rogue scientist who would be willing to suffer financial hardship for even seriously entertaining the idea. In essence, the modern day scientific schools bully people along a line of thought.... It had become a dogma of sorts, and like all cases where someone assumes they know it all... They are merely waiting the cliff at the end of the road.
I value scientific thinking and reasoning greatly, but I despise these sorts of intolerable people who I can do nothing but detest as a result of their ridiculous amount of hubris. My opinion is -- if you call yourself a scientist and don't actually explore the practical sides of a subject such as this you need to shut the hell up... I don't ask my dentist about my foot pain...
All that being said, I feel some religions are "fake" and don't actually involve any sort of practice... I think you have to be a monk or a magician to have a path -- joining a cheer team doesn't mean you are doing anything in actuality -- attending a service, reading a book, etc... Sorry, not enough... they mimic spiritual practices, but actually involve none of the processes just the appearance of them. (Most Christian practices are absorbed from pagans, but they don't even know why they do them... Go ahead and ask.. lol)

I like many of your points in the post.
Regards

 

[George-ananda]

A lot of religious people have quacky views on religion undeniably.

I'll agree with that too.

 

[paarsurrey]

Depends what you mean by 'religious matters'?
When you are talking about theology, spirituality, religious ethics, etc. then they frequently don't have a clue and their opinions are largely uninformed.
If you are talking about certain religious claims being scientifically/historically true or not then they might well be specialists on the issue. If I want to know how old the Earth is, a scientist knows more than a priest. When looking at historical events, a historian has every right to point out if religious dogma refers to events that didn't happen.
When religion overlaps with other areas of knowledge, then of course specialists in these areas of knowledge can offer valuable insights.

Every religion has a core of the teachings, nothing of that belongs to the physical and or material domains of sciences (the temporal realm), so in fact, religion gives a free hand to the people of sciences to explore things for the benefit humans beings. The founders of revealed religion did not speak anything against the scientists, they need not, as they deal the ethical, moral and spiritual realms the source of which is Word of Revelation based on their experiences (not experiments).
If there is an overlapping, if the specific religious system set by the founders of religion is intact , they do accept it, if it is not intact it may take sometime for acceptance.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Spiny Norman said: ↑
A lot of religious people have quacky views on religion undeniably.

I'll agree with that too.

The eulogizers of science (e.g. Atheists etc) are the quacks of science, the terrorists/extremists are the quacks in religion. The former use science as a tool to fulfil their agenda while the later commit wrongs in the name of religion. Both have nothing to do with science and or religion.
Regards

 

[Skwim]

Does any of this stuff has got anything to do with Biology? Please
Regards

Not directly.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Spiny Norman said: ↑
A lot of religious people have quacky views on religion undeniably.

The eulogizers of science (e.g. Atheists etc) are the quacks of science, the terrorists/extremists are the quacks in religion. The former use science as a tool to fulfil their agenda while the later commit wrongs in the name of religion. Both have nothing to do with science and or religion.
Regards

Hey, I'm an atheist. When do I get my copy of the Atheist agenda?

Question for you, paarsurrey. As someone who regularly defends Islam, and rails against people's misconceptions and generalisations, do you ever feel like maybe...just maybe...atheists come in a variety of flavours?

 

[paarsurrey]

Hey, I'm an atheist. When do I get my copy of the Atheist agenda?
Question for you, paarsurrey. As someone who regularly defends Islam, and rails against people's misconceptions and generalisations, do you ever feel like maybe...just maybe...atheists come in a variety of flavours?

I don know that Atheists are of as many flavours as their number is. They are but human.
Regards